On thumb drives I have files that binary file check the same but sound different on playback.
I have done the experiment with two copies of the same song on such thumb drives and have been able to reliably pick which one is which without viewing the player display.
The differences are not huge, but when one learns to distinguish the two files the differences do become significant.
This is one example due to learned listening skills and not due any particularly high hearing acuity.
To the experienced and unimpressionable, sighted vs non sighted listening makes no difference because we do not care about appearances but only performance.
Ask Ed Simon, I'll bet he knows which similarly specced amps that sound good and those that don't....in the pro audio world none of us gives a damn about what the front panel looks like in the slightest, performance talks, BS walks.
Single tone Sine wave testing tells nothing about how an amp sounds, Multitone is still a set of sine waves....music is the real test of amplifier performance, reactive loads trigger nasties that are not otherwise evident.
Maybe some of you guys should do some live mixing....it does not matter how good the band looks, when the mix is 'off' it's wrong, and when it's 'right' it's correct.
When you get the sound properly 'right' you might even get four women come up to the desk and compliment your efforts as happened a couple of weeks ago....
Dan.
I have done the experiment with two copies of the same song on such thumb drives and have been able to reliably pick which one is which without viewing the player display.
The differences are not huge, but when one learns to distinguish the two files the differences do become significant.
This is one example due to learned listening skills and not due any particularly high hearing acuity.
To the experienced and unimpressionable, sighted vs non sighted listening makes no difference because we do not care about appearances but only performance.
Ask Ed Simon, I'll bet he knows which similarly specced amps that sound good and those that don't....in the pro audio world none of us gives a damn about what the front panel looks like in the slightest, performance talks, BS walks.
Single tone Sine wave testing tells nothing about how an amp sounds, Multitone is still a set of sine waves....music is the real test of amplifier performance, reactive loads trigger nasties that are not otherwise evident.
Maybe some of you guys should do some live mixing....it does not matter how good the band looks, when the mix is 'off' it's wrong, and when it's 'right' it's correct.
When you get the sound properly 'right' you might even get four women come up to the desk and compliment your efforts as happened a couple of weeks ago....
Dan.
Last edited:
Max,
I can also tell you which amplifiers from major manufacturers fail the most. Any idea what it costs to fly across the US to find and change a failed amplifier?
Way back we did do a listen off to several major brands of amplifiers. Easy to tell the difference, preference was not the same for all participants.
Best sounding, highest failure rate! Worst sounding, lowest failure rate. Fortunately all the rest had almost as low a failure rate not quite tracking sound quality. So we use #2 & #3.
As to women and mixing, I had show open a just finished club. Their sound guy passed out during setup. Managed to get out of the hospital in time for the show. So I sat next to him for the whole gig, just in case. Yes I got notes with phone numbers, just for sitting there.
I think I mentioned one cause of Disco fàilures was all the notes stuffed under the turntables. (Before direct drive the bottoms were open.)
I can also tell you which amplifiers from major manufacturers fail the most. Any idea what it costs to fly across the US to find and change a failed amplifier?
Way back we did do a listen off to several major brands of amplifiers. Easy to tell the difference, preference was not the same for all participants.
Best sounding, highest failure rate! Worst sounding, lowest failure rate. Fortunately all the rest had almost as low a failure rate not quite tracking sound quality. So we use #2 & #3.
As to women and mixing, I had show open a just finished club. Their sound guy passed out during setup. Managed to get out of the hospital in time for the show. So I sat next to him for the whole gig, just in case. Yes I got notes with phone numbers, just for sitting there.
I think I mentioned one cause of Disco fàilures was all the notes stuffed under the turntables. (Before direct drive the bottoms were open.)
I know reliability is major part of your criterion, I left that bit out.
For interest sake, what amps do you use ?.
Ed, I'm talkin' live real rock/blues, we just laugh at that DJ pap stuff.
This is pretty much the only time I have had women come up to the live desk, certainly the first time pleasing four women at the same time.
.In DJ world, sure it happens all the time....loud bass beat and alcohol and women lose all discretion lol.
Dan.
Last edited:
Dan, many women may take considerable offense at that statement, and not find it funny at all. Not wise, and in bad taste, especially in public forum. For your own sake if nothing else, you should probably avoid saying things like that.
Pretty cabinets have nothing to do with it. If it makes no difference why are so many afraid to? This is John's thread and he said it again recently, in his experience blind the differences tend to disappear.
An oversight and serious flaw (easily measured artifacts) from early CD days. Presented at the AES by Dr. Lipshitz et al decades ago, there is evidence that almost any serious listener could train themselves to hear it.
I'm more interested in why one would prefer a Pass amp at .1% THD over a Bryston, SME, or Halcro.
Last edited:
I know reliability is major part of your criterion, I left that bit out.
For interest sake, what amps do you use ?.
Ed, I'm talkin' live real rock/blues, we just laugh at that DJ pap stuff.
This is pretty much the only time I have had women come up to the live desk, certainly the first time pleasing four women at the same time.
In DJ world, sure it happens all the time....loud bass beat and alcohol and women lose all discretion lol.
Dan.
4 ? wow. I never made it past 2. but then I am not a dj or mixer or rock musician.... just two women who were friends with each other. Not drunk is a lot sexier and fun.
-RNM
Pass has discussed this. JC does too except when he tries to point to it, he gets boo'ed off the stage here. Even though it is one of his reasons he has lasted at the top for so long.
Strange behavior, IMHO.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
THD at one point is really not an adequate descriptor of the total perceived sound.
Max I use Ashly and QSC, next project d & b. Crown is no longer in the list. Crest was the most reliable.
I got the note at a casino opening with a solid B list band.
Humor is the male really cute DJ was gay. But that was in the 70's when disco was new
Last edited:
Mark it's very simple: until you can demonstrably show something to be *reliably* the case, we should assume it isn't true. I'm not taking a negative hypothesis, I'm taking the null hypothesis. We simply don't know. Obviously you're reading it as I assume it's false -- not so, but with the caveat that the smaller and more subtle the effect, the more likely it is to be noise. My standards for actionable information are fairly high.
Sure it's possible, but your verbiage reads like we should assume it is true and operate with that being the case before confirmation.
And, yes, I used heresay correctly: "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."
I have strong opinions that uncontrolled, sighted data is entirely unreliable. I'm not saying it's wrong, necessarily, I'm saying it's useless and people who hang their hat on sighted comparisons are doing us all a grave disservice, but mostly themselves.
Sure it's possible, but your verbiage reads like we should assume it is true and operate with that being the case before confirmation.
And, yes, I used heresay correctly: "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."
I have strong opinions that uncontrolled, sighted data is entirely unreliable. I'm not saying it's wrong, necessarily, I'm saying it's useless and people who hang their hat on sighted comparisons are doing us all a grave disservice, but mostly themselves.
Last edited:
I would not discard "hearsay" as useless but would not base a critical conclusion on it. As a basis for further exploration it may be useful. however the actual cause of perceived differences can be many things including the color of the anodize on a panel. And whether the perception is of real differences or human reactions to disconnected input (color) becomes importance when trying to make decisions that affect marketability, cost, user satisfaction etc. in the context of a business. I'll add useless LED's any day to sell more product if it makes the customer happy. However i'll ditch them for myself.
Unfortunately when objective reality and subjective perceptions diverge it makes this more difficult to deal with. For the most part things like Jitter, THD, frequency response (except in speakers) are solved issues in terms of objective testing. But that doesn't mean that someone won't get more "satisfaction" from a different take with possibly non-flat response, higher distortion etc. If that user prefers something "different" all the more power to him/her for the confidence in the decision. However presenting departure from known standards as more accurate is less than honest.
Unfortunately when objective reality and subjective perceptions diverge it makes this more difficult to deal with. For the most part things like Jitter, THD, frequency response (except in speakers) are solved issues in terms of objective testing. But that doesn't mean that someone won't get more "satisfaction" from a different take with possibly non-flat response, higher distortion etc. If that user prefers something "different" all the more power to him/her for the confidence in the decision. However presenting departure from known standards as more accurate is less than honest.
The late, great Harry Pearson (TAS) was a word smith. Having worked for the NY Times he honed his writing skills such that when it came to describing the sound of something audio, he was amazing. I recall his description of a Magnapan speaker. When I bought and listened, all that I heard was exactly as he described the sound. He always described the sound of something in terms of what the music would sound like, live; Its weakness and strength areas as it would relate to live musical instruments. Not comparing brand A to B.
Over time, if an audio reviewer was frequently different from his readers experiences, they/he/she would get a lot of mail about it. And, eventually, go out of business or be replaced. Reviews have to reflect what most people would also hear. Now in rigorous science, we want and insist on 100% accuracy for proof of something. Or very close to 100%. In audio and other subjective uses, we can do less vigorous testing and let -maybe 75% accuracy be OK... Just made up that number. 100% isn't needed. So long as the majority hear it substantially the same way.
It is the reviewers and listening public as a whole which determine the brands which are on top A+. And that is a combination of listening and measurements. Designers trying for the top spot have to do same.
THx-RNMarsh
Over time, if an audio reviewer was frequently different from his readers experiences, they/he/she would get a lot of mail about it. And, eventually, go out of business or be replaced. Reviews have to reflect what most people would also hear. Now in rigorous science, we want and insist on 100% accuracy for proof of something. Or very close to 100%. In audio and other subjective uses, we can do less vigorous testing and let -maybe 75% accuracy be OK... Just made up that number. 100% isn't needed. So long as the majority hear it substantially the same way.
It is the reviewers and listening public as a whole which determine the brands which are on top A+. And that is a combination of listening and measurements. Designers trying for the top spot have to do same.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Speakers have strong sonic signatures as do highly colored amplifiers like the old Dyna MkIII's I had for a while. When it came to things with very subtle differences his stuff just became hubris.
Once again I might have to express my feelings on subjective testing.
Scott, is partially right that I don't do well with ABX double-blind tests, but most people don't do very well either, and this tends to form my opinion that there is something WRONG with ABX testing, because it shows little difference with many factors that I find important in long term listening. It is just a waste of time, to do a test that can't consistently match long term subjective opinion with the ABX results.
Personally, I generally rely on my own subjective opinion with the best audio reproduction equipment that I can afford, or the opinions of others in the audio industry, who I have found to be listening carefully.
In general, I make MEASUREMENTS on my new designs to optimize them. That is what I was doing all this week, trying to optimize idle currents and devices to get a 'best fit' for lowest higher order distortion.
At the same time I have been listening to 'digital' sources on my big system, finding that certain mods finally made it 'listenable' to me. I have tried CD, DVD and SACD. I hear their differences fairly easily, but I can now even listen to CD's even if they are marginally recorded, where even the best DVD's and SACD's sound 'digital dirty' previously, to the point that I rarely listened to them.
So, I trust my ears, and most of those of my associates, as well as being a strong advocate for good test measurements. I find that both approaches are necessary to be successful in the audio business. That is all there is to it.
Scott, is partially right that I don't do well with ABX double-blind tests, but most people don't do very well either, and this tends to form my opinion that there is something WRONG with ABX testing, because it shows little difference with many factors that I find important in long term listening. It is just a waste of time, to do a test that can't consistently match long term subjective opinion with the ABX results.
Personally, I generally rely on my own subjective opinion with the best audio reproduction equipment that I can afford, or the opinions of others in the audio industry, who I have found to be listening carefully.
In general, I make MEASUREMENTS on my new designs to optimize them. That is what I was doing all this week, trying to optimize idle currents and devices to get a 'best fit' for lowest higher order distortion.
At the same time I have been listening to 'digital' sources on my big system, finding that certain mods finally made it 'listenable' to me. I have tried CD, DVD and SACD. I hear their differences fairly easily, but I can now even listen to CD's even if they are marginally recorded, where even the best DVD's and SACD's sound 'digital dirty' previously, to the point that I rarely listened to them.
So, I trust my ears, and most of those of my associates, as well as being a strong advocate for good test measurements. I find that both approaches are necessary to be successful in the audio business. That is all there is to it.
Very strong words! Are you sure you are referring to this site?
If yes, may I ask what drove you to participate in a forum with such (per your description) low standards of conduct?
My version of the story says that participants were asked to provide proof that would back up their claims and extraordinary claims in particular. The kind of proof that would allow the tests or events to be repeated by others.
The history of the site is still open in front of you.
It may be that you may have acclimated by now.
The site was and is a place where opinions are asked to be named as opinions and proof is asked to be provided for claims named as facts.
Giving high score on reasoning, is what makes the difference in this site IMO
George
You do this every time I did not say ABX testing, I mean blind (I don't know) by any protocol you want. Every time we have tried that here it has gone nowhere. As George said folks were asked to participate in a demonstration even at times taking something and listening at their leisure. Once they realized the controls actually precluded a cheat they backed out. When people post files for ears only listening invariably some examine the data looking for clues, it's human nature. The irony is you probably can always cheat, take two identical 20db line stages with different op-amps you could drive them to the rails and offline in your own lab find overload signatures that match.
I'll remind you again that on a couple of occasions I sat with a TAS reviewer and listened to some equipment under review, some of what ensued was hilarious TAS was entertainment pure and simple like Terry Southern's short stories.
Last edited:
Just in case, here, copyright stereophile are a few measurements from a couple of Pass amplifiers. The THD vs power curves are what you would expect of a low feedback design. I personally would not expect this to have any significant signature, but that might be just me. I'd certainly be happy with one if I could afford it.
Stereophile summary '
I don't have much to say about the Pass Labs XA60.5 other than this: It is the best-sounding amplifier I have ever used.'
Stereophile summary '
I don't have much to say about the Pass Labs XA60.5 other than this: It is the best-sounding amplifier I have ever used.'
Attachments
The distortion even rises with frequency, what do ya know. My observations from limited experience are that Nelson's amp are brutal with respect to PS, heat sinking, etc.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.